I

Indeed, the "factors" theory is unsound in itself, for it arbitrarily 選ぶs out different 味方するs of social life, hypostasizes them, 変えるs them into 軍隊s of a special 肉親，親類d, which, from different 味方するs and with unequal success, draw the social man along the path of 進歩. But this theory is still いっそう少なく sound in the form 現在のd by Kablitz, who 変えるd into special sociological hypostases, not the さまざまな 味方するs of the activities of the social man,  but the different spheres of the individual mind.  This is a veritable Herculean 中心存在 of abstraction; beyond this one cannot go, for beyond it lies the comic kingdom of utter and obvious absurdity. It is to this that the "esteemed sociologist" should have drawn the attention of Kablitz and his readers.

Perhaps, after 明らかにする／漏らすing the depths of abstraction into which the 成果／努力 to find the predominating "factor" in history had led Kablitz, the "esteemed sociologist" might, by chance, have made some 出資／貢献 to the critique of this "factors" theory. This would have been very useful for all of us at that time. But he 証明するd unequal to his 使節団. He himself subscribed to that theory, 異なるing from Kablitz only in his leanings toward eclecticism,   and, その結果, all the "factors" seemed to him 平等に important. Subsequently, the eclectic nature of his mind 設立する 特に striking 表現 in his attacks on dialectical materialism, which he regarded as a doctrine that sacrifices all other factors to the 経済的な "factor" and 減ずるs the 役割 of the individual in history to nothing. It never occurred to the "esteemed sociologist" that the "factors" point of 見解（をとる） is 外国人 to dialectical materialism, and that only one who is utterly incapable of thinking 論理（学）上 can see in it any justification of いわゆる quietism.  Incidentally, it must be 観察するd that the slip made by our "esteemed sociologist" is not unique; very many others have made it, are making it and, probably, will go on making it.

Materialists were （刑事）被告 of leanings toward quietism even before they had worked out their dialectical conception of nature and of history. Without making an excursion into the "depth of time," we will 解任する the 論争 between the celebrated English scientists, Priestley and Price. 分析するing Priestley's theories, Price argued that materialism was 相いれない with the 概念 of 解放する／自由な will, and that it 妨げるd all 独立した・無所属 activity on the part of the individual. In reply Priestly referred to everyday experience. He would not speak of himself, he said, though by no means the most apathetic of creatures, but where would one find more mental vigor, more activity, more 軍隊 and persistence in the 追跡 of 極端に important 目的（とする）s than の中で those who subscribe to the doctrine of necessity? Priestley had in 見解（をとる） the 宗教的な, democratic sect they known as Christian Necessarians.^[1] We do not know whether this sect was as active as Priestley, who belonged to it, thought it was. But that is not important.

There can be not the slightest 疑問 that the materialist conception of the human will is やめる 両立できる with the most vigorous practical activity. Lanson 観察するs that "all the doctrines which called for the 最大の exertion of human will 主張するd, in 原則, that the will was impotent; they 拒絶するd 解放する／自由な will and 支配するd the world to fatalism."^[2] Lanson was wrong in thinking that every repudiation of what is called 解放する／自由な will leads to fatalism; but this did not 妨げる him from 公式文書，認めるing an 極端に 利益／興味ing historical fact. Indeed, history shows that even fatalism was not always a hindrance to energetic, practical 活動／戦闘; on the contrary, in 確かな 時代s it was a psychologically necessary basis for such 活動／戦闘.  In proof of this, we will point to the Puritans, who in energy excelled all the other parties in England in the 17th century; and to the 信奉者s of Mohammed, who in a short space of time subjugated an enormous part of the globe, stretching from India to Spain. Those who think that as soon as we are 納得させるd of the inevitability of a 確かな 一連の events we lose all psychological 可能性 to help bring on, or to 中和する／阻止する, these events, are very much mistaken. ^[3]

Here, everything depends upon whether my activities 構成する an 必然的な link in the chain of 必然的な events. If they do, then I waver いっそう少なく and the more resolute are my 活動／戦闘s. There is nothing surprising in this. When we say that a 確かな individual regards his activities as an 必然的な link in the chain of 必然的な events, we mean, の中で other things, that for this individual, 欠如（する） of 解放する／自由な will is tantamount to incapability of inaction,  and that this 欠如（する） of 解放する／自由な will is 反映するd in his mind as the impossibility of 事実上の／代理 異なって from the way he is 事実上の／代理.  This is 正確に the psychological mood that can be 表明するd in the celebrated words of Luther: "Here I stand, I can do no other," and thanks to which men 陳列する，発揮する the most indomitable energy, 成し遂げる the most astonishing feats. Hamlet never knew this mood; that is why he was only 有能な of moaning and 反映するing. And that is why Hamlet would never have 受託するd a philosophy によれば which freedom is 単に necessity transformed into mind. Fichte rightly said: "As the man is, so is his philosophy."

II

If the example of the （太陽，月の）食／失墜 of the moon were no longer to appear nonsensical to the above-について言及するd party, it must be 完全に changed. We would have to imagine that the moon is endowed with a mind, and that her position in celestial space, which 原因（となる）s her （太陽，月の）食／失墜, appears to her as the fruit of the selfdetermination of her own will; that this position not only gives her enormous 楽しみ, but is 絶対 necessary for her peace of mind; and that this is why she always passionately 努力する／競うs to 占領する it.^[4] After imagining all this, the question would have to be asked: What would the moon feel if she discovered, at last, that it is not her will and not her "ideals" which 決定する her movement in celestial space, but, on the contrary, that her movement 決定するs her will and her "ideals"? によれば Stammler, such a 発見 would certainly make her incapable of moving, unless she 後継するd in extricating herself from her predicament by some 論理（学）の contradiction. But such an 仮定／引き受けること is 全く groundless. This 発見 might serve as a formal  推論する／理由 for the moon's bad temper, for feeling out of harmony with herself, for the contradiction between her "ideals" and mechanical reality. But since we are assuming that the "moon's psychological 明言する／公表する" in general,  is 決定するd, in the last 分析, by her movement, the 原因（となる） of her 乱すd peace of mind must be sought for in her movement. On careful examination, it might be 設立する that when the moon was at her apogee she grieved over the fact that her will was not 解放する／自由な; and when she was at her perigee, this very circumstance served as a new, formal 原因（となる） of her happiness and good spirits. Perhaps, the opposite might have happened; perhaps it would have transpired that she 設立する the means of reconciling 解放する／自由な will with necessity, not at her perigee, but at her apogee.

Be that as it may, such a 仲直り is undoubtedly possible; 存在 conscious of necessity is やめる 両立できる with the most energetic, practical 活動／戦闘. At all events, this has been the 事例／患者 in history so far. Men who have repudiated 解放する／自由な will often have excelled all their 同時代のs in strength of will, and 主張するd their will to the 最大の. 非常に／多数の examples of this can be 特記する／引用するd. They are known universally. They can be forgotten, as Stammler evidently does, only if one deliberately 辞退するs to see historical reality as it 現実に is. This 態度 is 堅固に 示すd の中で our subjectivists, for example, and の中で some Cerman philistines. Philistines and subjectivists, however, are not men, but mere phantoms,  as Belinsky would have said.

However, let us 診察する more closely the 事例／患者 in which a man's own 活動／戦闘s - past, 現在の or 未来 - seem to him 完全に colored by necessity. We already know that such a man, regarding himself as a messenger of God, like Mohammed, as one chosen by ineluctable 運命, like Napoleon, or as the 表現 of the irresistible 軍隊 of historical 進歩, like some of the public men in the 19th century, 陳列する，発揮するs almost elemental strength of will, and sweeps frorn his path like a house of cards all the 障害s 始める，決める up by the small-town Hamlets and Hamletkins.^[5] But this 事例／患者 利益／興味s us now from another angle, すなわち: When the consciousness of my 欠如（する） of 解放する／自由な will 現在のs itself to me only in the form of the 完全にする subjective and 客観的な impossibility of 事実上の／代理 異なって from the way I am 事実上の／代理, and when, at the same time, my 活動／戦闘s are to me the most 望ましい of all other possible 活動／戦闘s, then in my mind necessity becomes identified with freedom and freedom with necessity; and then, I am unfree only in the sense that I cannot 乱す this 身元 between freedom and necessity,  I cannot …に反対する one to the other, I cannot feel the 抑制 of necessity. , But such a 欠如（する） of freedom  is at the same time its fullest manifestation.

Zimmel says that freedom is always freedom from something, and, when freedom is not conceived as the opposite of 抑制 it is meaningless. That is so, of course. But this slight, elementary truth cannot serve as a ground for 反駁するing the 論題／論文 that freedom means 存在 conscious of necessity, which 構成するs one of the most brilliant 発見s ever made by philosophic thought. Zimmel's 鮮明度／定義 is too 狭くする; it 適用するs only to freedom from 外部の 抑制. As long as we are discussing only such 抑制s it would be 極端に ridiculous to identify freedom with necessity: a すり is not 解放する／自由な to steal your pocket-handkerchief while you are 妨げるing him from doing so and until he has 打ち勝つ your 抵抗 in one way or another. In 新規加入 to this elementary and superficial conception of freedom, however, there is another, incomparably more 深遠な. For those who are incapable of thinking philosophically this 概念 does not 存在する at all; and those who are 有能な of thinking philosophically しっかり掴む it only when they have cast off dualism and realize that, contrary to the 仮定／引き受けること of the dualists, there is no 湾 between the 支配する and the 反対する.

The ロシアの subjectivist …に反対するs his utopian ideals to our 資本主義者 reality and goes no その上の. The subjectivists are stuck in the bog of dualism. The ideals of the いわゆる ロシアの "disciples" 似ている 資本主義者 reality far いっそう少なく than the ideals of the subjectivists. Notwithstanding this, however, the "disciples" have 設立する a 橋（渡しをする） which 部隊s ideals with reality. The "disciples" have elevated themselves to monism. In their opinion, in the course of its 開発, capitalism will lead to its own negation and to the 現実化 of their, the ロシアの "disciples'" - and not only the ロシアの - ideals. This is historical necessity.  The "disciple" serves as an 器具 of this necessity  and cannot help doing so, 借りがあるing to his social status and to his mentality and temperament, which were created by his status.

This, too, is an 面 of necessity.  Since his social status has imbued him with this character and no other, he not only serves as an 器具 of necessity and cannot help doing so, but he passionately 願望（する）s, and cannot help 願望（する）ing,  to do so. This is an 面 of freedom,  and, moreover, of freedom that has grown out of necessity, i.e., to put it more 正確に, it is freedom that is 同一の with necessity - it is necessity transformed into freedom.^[6] This freedom is also freedom from a 確かな 量 of 抑制; it is also the antithesis ot a 確かな 量 of 制限. Protound 鮮明度／定義s do not retute superficial ones, but, supplementillg them, 含む them in themselves.

But what sort of 抑制, what sort of 制限, is in question in this 事例／患者? This is （疑いを）晴らす: the moral 抑制 which 抑制（する）s the energy of those who have not cast oft dualism; the 制限 苦しむd by those who are unable to 橋（渡しをする） the 湾 between ideals and reality. Until the individual has won this freedom by heroic 成果／努力 in philosophical thinking he does not fully belong to himself, and his mental 拷問s are the shameful 尊敬の印 he 支払う／賃金s to 外部の necessity that stands …に反対するd to him. But as SOOII as this individual throws off the yoke of this painful and shameful 制限 he is born for a new, 十分な life, hitherto never experienced; and his Jree 活動／戦闘s become the conscious and 解放する／自由な 表現 of necessity. Then he will become a 広大な／多数の／重要な social torce; and then nothing can, and nothing will, 妨げる him from Bursting on cunning falsehood
Like a 嵐／襲撃する of wrath divine ...

III

Indeed, let us suppose that 現象 A must やむを得ず take place under a given sum of circumstances. You have 証明するd to me that a part of this sum of circumstances already 存在するs and that the other part will 存在する in a given time, T. 存在 納得させるd ot this, I, the man who sympathizes with 現象 A, exclaim: "Good!" and then go to sleep until the happy day when the event you have foretold takes place. What will be the result? The に引き続いて: In your 計算／見積りs, the sum of circumstances necessary to bring about 現象 A 含むd my activitities,  equal, let us say to a.  As, however, I am immersed in 深い slumber, the sum of circumstances 都合のよい for the given 現象 at time T will be, not S, but S-a,  which changes the 状況／情勢. Perhaps my place will be taken by another man, who was also on the point of inaction but was saved by the sight of my apathy, which to him appeared to be pernicious. In that 事例／患者, 軍隊 a  will be 取って代わるd by 軍隊 b,  and if a  equals b,  the sum of circumstances 都合のよい for A will remain equal to S, and 現象 A will take place, after all at time T.

But if my 軍隊 cannot be regarded as 存在 equal to 無, if I am a skilful and 有能な 労働者, and nobody has 取って代わるd me, then we will not have the 十分な sum S, and 現象 A will take place later than we assumed, or not as fully as we 推定する／予想するd, or it may not take place at all. This is as （疑いを）晴らす as daylight; and if I do not understand it, if I think that S remains S even after I am 取って代わるd, it is only because I am unable to count. But am I the only one unable to count? You, who prophesied that the sum S would certainly be 利用できる at time r, did not 予知する that I would go to sleep すぐに after my conversation with you; you were 納得させるd that I would remain a good 労働者 to the end - the 軍隊 was いっそう少なく reliable than you thought. Hence, you too counted 不正に. But let us suppose that you had made no mistake, that you had made allowance for everything. Ih that 事例／患者, your 計算／見積りs will assume the に引き続いて form: you say that at time T the sum S will be 利用できる. This sum of circumstances will 含む my 交替／補充 as a 消極的な magnitude;  and it will also 含む, as a 肯定的な magnitude,  the 刺激するing 影響 on strong-minded men of the 有罪の判決 that their strivings and ideals are the subjective 表現 of 客観的な necessity. In that 事例／患者, the sum S indeed will be 利用できる at the time you 任命するd, and 現象 A will take place.

I think this is （疑いを）晴らす. But if this is （疑いを）晴らす, why was I 混乱させるd by the idea that 現象 A was 必然的な? Why did it seem to me that it 非難するd me to inaction? Why, in discussing it, did I forget the simplest 支配するs of arithmetic? Probably because, 借りがあるing to the circumstances of my しつけ, I already had a very strong leaning toward inaction and my conversation with you served as the 減少（する） which filled the cup of this laudable inclination to 洪水ing. That is all. Only in this sense - as the 原因（となる） that 明らかにする／漏らすd my moral flabbiness and uselessness - did the consciousness of necessity 人物／姿／数字 here. It cannot かもしれない be regarded as the 原因（となる）  of this flabbiness; the 原因（となる）s of it are the circumstances of my しつけ. And so. . . and so - arithmetic is a very respectable and useful science, the 支配するs of which should not be forgotten even by - I would say, 特に by - philosophers. But what 影響 will the consciousness of the necessity of' a given 現象 have upon a strong man who does not sympathize  with it and resists  its taking place? Here the 状況／情勢 is somewhat different. It is very possible that it will 原因（となる） the vigor of his 抵抗 to relax. But when do the 対抗者s of a given 現象 become 納得させるd that it is 必然的な? When the circumstances 都合のよい to it are very 非常に／多数の and very strong. The 現実化 by its 対抗者s that the 現象 is 必然的な and the 緩和 of their energy are 単に manifestations of the 軍隊 of circumstances 都合のよい to it. Such manifestations, in their turn, are a part of the 都合のよい circumstances.

But the vigor of 抵抗 will not be relaxed の中で all the 対抗者s; の中で some of them the consciousness that the 現象 is 必然的な will 原因（となる） the 抵抗 to grow and become transformed into the vigor of despair. History in general, and the history of Russia in particular, 供給するs not a few instructive examples of this sort of vigor. We hope the reader will be able to 解任する these without our 援助.

Here we are interrupted by Mr. Kareyev, who, while of course 同意しないing with our 見解（をとる）s on freedom and necessity and, moreover, disapproving of our partiality for the "extremes" to which strong men go, にもかかわらず, is pleased to 遭遇（する） in the pages of our 定期刊行物 the idea that the individual may be a 広大な／多数の／重要な social 軍隊. The worthy professor joyfully exclaims: "I have always said that!" And this is true. Mr. Kareyev, and all the subjectivists, have always ascribed a very important 役割 to .he individual in history. And ~here was a time when they enjoyed かなり sympathy の中で 前進するd young people who were imbued with noble strivings to work for the ありふれた wealth and, therefore, 自然に were inclined to attach 広大な／多数の／重要な importance to individual 率先.

In essence, however, the subjectivists have never been able to solve, or even to 現在の 適切に, the problem of the 役割 of the individual in history. As against the 影響（力） of the 法律s  of social-historical 進歩, they 前進するd the "activities of 批判的に thinking individuals," and thus created, as it were, a new 種類 of the factors theory: 批判的に thinking individuals were one factor  of this 進歩; its own 法律s were the other factor.  This resulted in an extreme incongruity, which one could put up with as long as the attention of the active "individuals" was concentrated on the practical problems of the day and they had no time to 充てる to philosophical problems. But the 静める which 続いて起こるd in the eighties gave those who were 有能な of thinking 施行するd leisure for philosophical reflection, and since then the subjectivist doctrine has been bursting at all its seams, and even 落ちるing to pieces, like the celebrated overcoat of Akakii Akakievich. No 量 of patching was of any use, and one after another thinking people began to 拒絶する subjectivism as an 明白に and utterly unsound doctrine.

As always happens in such 事例／患者s, however, the reaction against this doctrine 原因（となる）d some of its 対抗者s to go to the opposite extreme. While some subjectivists, 努力する／競うing to ascribe the widest possible 役割 to the "individual" in history, 辞退するd to 認める the historical 進歩 of mankind as a 過程 表明するing 法律s, some of their later 対抗者s, 努力する／競うing to bring out more はっきりと the coherent character of this 進歩, were evidently 用意が出来ている to forget that men make history, and, therefore, the activities of individuals cannot help 存在 important in history.  They have 宣言するd the individual to be a quantité négligeable.  In theory, this extreme is as 許すことの出来ない as the one reached by the more ardent subjectivists. It is as unsound to sacritice the 論題／論文 to the antitithesis as to forget the antithesis for the sake of the 論題／論文. The 訂正する point of 見解（をとる） will be 設立する only when we 後継する in 部隊ing the points of truth 含む／封じ込めるd in them into a 合成.^[7]

IV

These 恐れるs have now been dispelled. The German historians have dispelled them for us. We are やめる serious in 説 this. The fact of the 事柄 is that lately a rather heated 論争 has been going on の中で the German historians over 広大な／多数の／重要な men in history. Some have been inclined to regard the political activities of these men as the main and almost the only spring of historical 開発, while others have been 主張するing that such a position is one-味方するd and that the science of history must have in 見解（をとる）, not only the activities of 広大な／多数の／重要な men, and not only political history, but historical life as a whole (das Ganze des geschichtilichen Lebens).

One of the 代表者／国会議員s of the latter 傾向 is Karl Lamprecht, author of The History of the German People.  Lamprecht's 対抗者s （刑事）被告 him of 存在 a "collectivist"  and a materialist; he was even placed on a par with - horribile dictu - the "Social-Democratic atheists," as he 表明するd it in winding up the 審議. When we became 熟知させるd with his 見解（をとる）s we 設立する that the 告訴，告発s 投げつけるd against this poor savant were utterly groundless. At the same time we were 納得させるd that the 現在の-day German historians were incapable of solving the problem of the 役割 of the individual in history. We then decided that we had a 権利 to assume that the problem was still 未解決の even for a number of ロシアの readers, and that something could still be said about it that would not be altogether 欠如（する）ing in theoretical and practical 利益／興味.

Lamprecht gathered a whole collection (eine artige Sammlung,  as he 表明するs it) of the 見解（をとる）s of 目だつ statesmen on their own activities in the historical milieu in which they 追求するd them; in his polemics, however, he 限定するd himself for the time 存在 to 言及／関連s to some of the speeches and opinions of Bismarck. He 引用するd the に引き続いて words, uttered by the アイロンをかける （ドイツなどの）首相／（大学の）学長 in the North German Reichstag on April 16, 1869:

"Gentlemen, we can neither ignore the history of the past nor create the 未来. I would like to 警告する you against the mistake that 原因（となる）s people to 前進する the 手渡すs of their clocks, thinking that その為に they are 急いでing the passage of time. My 影響（力） on the events I took advantage of is usually 誇張するd; but it would never occur to anyone to 需要・要求する that I should make history.  I could not do that even in 合同 with you, although together, we could resist the whole world. We cannot make history; we must wait while it is 存在 made. We will not make fruit ripen more quickly by 支配するing it to the heat of a lamp; and if we pluck the fruit before it is 熟した we will only 妨げる its growth and spoil it."

Referring to the 証拠 of Joly, Lamprecht also 引用するs the opinions which Bismarck 表明するd more than once during the フランス系カナダ人-Prussian war. Again, the idea that runs through these opinions is that "we cannot make 広大な／多数の／重要な historical events, but must adapt ourselves to the natural course of things and 限界 ourselves to 安全な・保証するing what is already 熟した." Lamprecht regards this as the 深遠な and whole truth. In his opinion, a modern historian cannot think さもなければ, 供給するd he is able to peer into the depths of events and not 制限する his field of 見通し to too short an interval of time. Could Bismarck have 原因（となる）d Germany to 逆戻りする to natural economy? He would have been unable to do this even at the 高さ of his 力／強力にする. General historical circumstances are stronger than the strongest individuals. For a 広大な／多数の／重要な man, the general character of his 時代 is "empirically given necessity."

This is how Lamprecht 推論する／理由s, calling his 見解（をとる） a 全世界の／万国共通の one. It is not difficult to see the weak 味方する of this "全世界の／万国共通の" 見解（をとる）. I he above 引用するd opinions of Bismarck are very 利益／興味ing as a psychological 文書. One may not sympathize with the activities of the late German （ドイツなどの）首相／（大学の）学長, but one cannot say that they were insignificant, that Bismarck was distinguished for "quietism." It was about him that Lassalle said: "The servants of reaction are no orators; but God 認める that 進歩 has servants like them." And yet this man, who at times 陳列する，発揮するd truly アイロンをかける energy, considered himself 絶対 impotent in 直面する of the natural course of things, evidently regarding himself as a simple 器具 of historical 開発. This 証明するs once again that one can see phenomena in the light of necessity and at the same time be a very energetic 政治家. But it is only in this 尊敬（する）・点 that Bismarck's opinions are 利益／興味ing; they cannot be regarded as a 解答 of the problem of the 役割 of the individual in history.

によれば Bismarck, events occur of themselves, and we can 安全な・保証する what they 準備する for us. But every 行為／法令／行動する of "安全な・保証するing" is also an historical event. What is the difference between such events and those that occur of themselves? 現実に, nearly every historical event is 同時に an 行為／法令／行動する of the "安全な・保証するing" by somebody of the already ripened fruit of 先行する 開発 and a link in the chain of events which are 準備するing the fruits of the 未来. How can 行為／法令／行動するs of "安全な・保証するing" be …に反対するd to the natural course of things? Evidently, Bismarck 手配中の，お尋ね者 to say that individuals and groups of individuals operating in history never were and never will be all-powerful. This, of course, is beyond all 疑問. にもかかわらず, we would like to know what their 力／強力にする - far from omnipotent, of course - depends on; under what circumstances it grows and under what circumstances it 減らすs. Neither Bismarck nor the learned 支持する of the "全世界の／万国共通の" conception of history who 引用するs him answers these questions.

It is true that Lamprecht gives more reasonable quotations.^[8] For example, he 引用するs the に引き続いて words of Monod, one of the most 目だつ 代表者／国会議員s of 同時代の historical science in フラン:

"Historians are too much in the habit of 支払う／賃金ing attention only to the brilliant, clamorous and ephemeral manifestations of human activity, to 広大な／多数の／重要な events and 広大な／多数の／重要な men, instead of 描写するing the 広大な／多数の／重要な and slow changes of 経済的な 条件s and social 会・原則s, which 構成する the really 利益／興味ing and intrallsient part of human 開発 - the part which, to a 確かな extent, may be 減ずるd to 法律s and 支配するd, to a 確かな extent, to exact 分析. Indeed, important events and individuals are important 正確に as 調印するs and symbols of different moments of the aforesaid 開発. But most of the events that are called historical have the same relation to real history as the waves which rise up from the surface of the sea, gleam in the light for a moment and break on the sandy shore, leaving no trace behind them, have to the 深い and constant 動議 of the tides."

Lamprecht 宣言するs that he is 用意が出来ている to put his 署名 to every one of these words. It is 井戸／弁護士席 known that German savants are 気が進まない to agree with French savants and the French are 気が進まない to agree with the German. That is why the ベルギー historian Pirenne was 特に pleased to 強調する in Revue Historique  the fact that Monod's conception of history 同時に起こる／一致するs with that of Lamprecht. "This harmony is 極端に 重要な," he 観察するd. "Evidently, it shows that the 未来 belongs to the new conception of history."

V

In the first place, however, Pirenne is wrong in thinking that this is a new 傾向. It arose in the science of history as far 支援する as the twenties of the 19th century; Guizot, Mignet, Augustin Thierry and, subsequently, Tocqueville and others, were its brilliant and 一貫した 代表者／国会議員s. The 見解（をとる）s of Monod and Lamprecht are but a faint copy of an old but excellent 初めの. Secondly, 深遠な as the 見解（をとる）s of Guizot, Mignet and the other French historians may have been for their time, much in them has remained unelucidated. They do not 供給する a 十分な and 限定された 解答 of the problem of the 役割 of the individual in history. And the science of history must 供給する this 解答 if its 代表者／国会議員s are 運命にあるd to rid themselves of their one-味方するd conception of their 支配する. The 未来 belongs to the school that finds the best 解答 of this problem, の中で others.

The 見解（をとる）s of Guizot, Mignet and the other historians who belonged to this 傾向 were a reaction against the 見解（をとる）s on history that 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるd in the 18th century and 構成するd their antithesis. In the 18th century the students of the philosophy of history 減ずるd everything to the conscious activities of individuals. True, there were exceptions to the 支配する even at that time: the philosophical-historical field of 見通し of Vico, Montesquieu and Herder, for example, was much wider. But we are not speaking of exceptions; the 広大な／多数の／重要な 大多数 of the thinkers of the 18th century regarded history 正確に／まさに in the way we have 述べるd.

In this 関係 it is very 利益／興味ing to peruse once again the historical 作品 of Mably, for example. によれば Mably, Minos created the whole of the social and political life and 倫理学 of the Cretes, while Lycurgus 成し遂げるd the same service for Sparta. If the Spartans "拒絶するd" materal wealth, it was 予定 完全に to Lycurgus, who "descended, so to speak, into the depths of the hearts of his fellow-国民s and there 鎮圧するd the germ of love for wealth" (descendit 注ぐ ainsi 悲惨な jusque dans le fond du coeur des citoyens, etc.) .^[9] And if, subsequently, the Spartans 逸脱するd from the path the wise Lycurgus had pointed out to them, the 非難する for this 残り／休憩（する）s on Lysander, who 説得するd them that "new times and new 条件s called for new 支配するs and a new 政策.^[10] 研究s written from the point of 見解（をとる） of such conceptions have very little affinity with science, and were written as sermons 単独で for the sake of the moral "lessons" that could be drawn from them.

It was against such conceptions that the French historians of the period of the 復古／返還 反乱d. After the stupendous events at the end of the 18th century it was 絶対 impossible any longer to think that history was made by more or いっそう少なく 目だつ and more or いっそう少なく noble and enlightened individuals who, at their own discretion, imbued the unenlightened but obedient 集まりs with 確かな 感情s and ideas. Moreover, this philosophy of history 感情を害する／違反するd the plebeian pride of the bourgeois theoreticians. They were 誘発するd by the same feelings that 明らかにする／漏らすd themselves in the 18th century in the rise of bourgeois 演劇. In 戦闘ing the old conceptions of history, Thierry used the same arguments that were 前進するd by Beaumarchais and others against the old aesthetics.^[11] Lastly, the 嵐／襲撃するs which フラン had just experienced very 明確に 明らかにする／漏らすd that the course of historical events by no means was 決定するd 単独で by the conscious 活動／戦闘s of men; this circumstance alone was enough to 示唆する the idea that these events were 予定 to the 影響（力） of some hidden necessity, operating blindly like the elemental 軍隊s of nature, but in 一致 with 確かな immutable 法律s.

It is an 極端に remarkable fact - which nobody, as far as we know, has pointed to before - that the French historians of the period of the 復古／返還 適用するd the new conception of history as a 過程 適合するing to 法律s most 終始一貫して in their 作品 on the French 革命. This was the 事例／患者, for example, in the 作品 of Mignet. Chateaubriand called the new school of history fatalistic. 明確に表すing the 仕事s which it 始める，決める the 捜査官／調査官, he said:

"This system 需要・要求するs that the historian shall 述べる without indignation the most 残虐な 残虐（行為）s, speak without love about the highest virtues and with his glacial 注目する，もくろむ see in social life only the manifestation of irresistible 法律s 予定 to which every 現象 occurs 正確に／まさに as it 必然的に had to occur."^[12]

This is wrong, of course. The new school did not 需要・要求する that the historian should be impassive. Augustin Thierry even said やめる 率直に that political passion, by sharpening the mind of the 捜査官／調査官, may serve as a powerful means of discovering the truth.^[13] Even only slight familiarity with the historical 作品 of Guizot, Thierry or Mignet would show that they 堅固に sympathized with the bourgeoisie in its struggle against the lords temporal and spiritual, 同様に as with its 成果／努力s to 抑える the 需要・要求するs of the rising proletariat. What is incontrovertible is the に引き続いて: The new school of history arose in the twenties of the l9th century at a time when the bourgeoisie had already vanquished the aristocracy, although the latter was still 努力する／競うing to 回復する some of its old 特権s.

The proud consciousness of the victory of their class was 反映するd in all the arguments of the historians of the new school. And as the bourgeoisie was never distinguished for knightly chivalry, one can いつかs discern a 公式文書，認める of harshness toward the vanquished in the arguments of its 科学の 代表者／国会議員s. "Le 加える fort 吸収する le 加える faible,"  says Guizot, in one of his polemical 小冊子s, "et il est de droit."  [The strongest 吸収するs the weakest, and he has a 権利 to do so.] His 態度 toward the working class is no いっそう少なく 厳しい. It was this harshness, which at times assumed the form of 静める detachment, that misled Chateaubriand. Moreover, at that time it was not yet やめる （疑いを）晴らす what was meant when it was said that history 適合するd to 確かな 法律s. Lastly, the new school may have appeared to be fatalistic because, 努力する／競うing 堅固に to 可決する・採択する this point of 見解（をとる）, it paid little attention to the 広大な／多数の／重要な individuals in history.^[14] Those who had been brought up on the historical ideas of the 18th century 設立する it difficult to 受託する this. 反対s to the 見解（をとる）s of the new historians 注ぐd in from all 味方するs, and then the 論争 ゆらめくd up which, as we have seen, has not ended to this day.

In January 1826, in a review in the Globe of the fifth and sixth 容積／容量s of Mignet's History of the French 革命,  Sainte-Beuve wrote as follows:

"At any given moment by the sudden 決定／判定勝ち（する） of his will, a man may introduce into the course of events a new, 予期しない and changeable 軍隊, which may alter that course, but which itself cannot be 手段d 借りがあるing to its changeability."

It must not be thought that Sainte-Beuve assumed that "sudden 決定／判定勝ち（する）s" of human will occur without 原因（となる）. No, that would have been too naive. He 単に 主張するd that the mental and moral 質s of a man who is playing a more or いっそう少なく important 役割 in public life, his talent, knowledge, resoluteness or irresoluteness, courage or cowardice, etc., cannot help having a 示すd 影響（力） on the course and 結果 of events; and yet these 質s cannot be explained 単独で by the general 法律s of 開発 of a nation; they are always, and to a かなりの degree, acquired as a result of the 活動／戦闘 of what may be called the 事故s of 私的な life. We will 引用する a few examples to explain this idea, which, incidentally, seems to me （疑いを）晴らす enough as it is.

During the War of the Austrian Succession the French army 達成するd several brilliant victories and it seemed that フラン was in a position to 強要する Austria to cede 公正に／かなり 広範囲にわたる 領土 in what is now Belgium; but Louis XV did not （人命などを）奪う，主張する this 領土 because, as he said, he was fighting as a king and not as a merchant, and フラン got nothing out of the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle. If, however, Louis XV had been a man of a different character, the 領土 of フラン would have been 大きくするd and as a result her 経済的な and political 開発 would have taken a somewhat different course.

As we know, フラン 行うd the Seven Years' War in 同盟 with Austria. It is said that this 同盟 was 結論するd as a result of the strong 圧力 of Madame Pompadour, who had been 極端に flattered by the fact that, in a letter to her, proud Maria-Theresa had called her "cousin" or "dear friend" (bien bonne amie).  Hence, one can say that had Louis XV been a man of 厳格な人 morals, or had he submitted いっそう少なく to his favorite's 影響（力）, Madame Pompadour would not have been able to 影響（力） the course of events to the extent that she did, and they would have taken a different turn.

その上の, フラン was 不成功の in the Seven Years' War; her generals 苦しむd several very shameful 敗北・負かすs. Speaking 一般に, their 行為／行う was very strange, to say the least. Richelieu engaged in plunder, and Soubise and Broglie were 絶えず 妨げるing each other. For example, when Broglie was attacking the enemy at Villinghausen, Soubise heard the 砲火 but did not go to his comrade's 援助, as had been arranged and as he undoubtedly should have done, and Broglie was 強いるd to 退却／保養地.^[15] The 極端に incompetent Soubise enjoyed the 保護 of the aforesaid Madame Pompadour. We can say again that had Louis XV been いっそう少なく lascivious, or had his favorite 差し控えるd from 干渉するing in politics, events would not have turned out so unfavorably for フラン.

French historians say that there was no need どれでも for フラン to 行う war on the European continent, and that she should have concentrated all her 成果／努力s on the sea ーするために resist England's encroachments on her 植民地s. The fact that she 行為／法令／行動するd 異なって was again 予定 to the 必然的な Madame Pompadour, who 手配中の，お尋ね者 to please "her dear friend," Maria Theresa. As a result of the Seven Years' War, フラン lost her best 植民地s, which undoubtedly 大いに 影響（力）d the 開発 of her 経済的な relations. In this 事例／患者, feminine vanity appears in the 役割 of the 影響力のある "factor" of 経済的な 開発.

Do we need any other examples? We will 引用する one more, perhaps the most astonishing one. During the aforesaid Seven Years' War, in August 1761, the Austrian 軍隊／機動隊s, having 部隊d with the ロシアの 軍隊／機動隊s in Silesia, surrounded Frederick 近づく Striegau. Frederick's position was desperate but the 同盟（する）s were tardy in attacking, and General Buturlin, after 直面するing the enemy for twenty days, withdrew his 軍隊／機動隊s from Silesia, leaving only a part of his 軍隊s as 増強s for the Austrian General Laudon. Laudon 逮捕（する）d Schweidnitz, 近づく which Frederick was 野営するd, but this victory was of little importance. Suppose, however, Buturlin had been a man of firmer character? Suppose the 同盟（する）s had attacked Frederick before he had time to 堅固に守る himself? They might have 大勝するd him, and he would have been compelled to 産する／生じる to all the 勝利者s' 需要・要求するs. And this occurred barely a few months before a new 偶発の circumstance, the death of 皇后 Elizabeth, すぐに changed the 状況／情勢 大いに in Frederick's 好意. We would like to ask: What would have happened had Buturlin been a man of more resolute character, or had a man like Suvorov been in his place?

In 診察するing the 見解（をとる）s of the "fatalist" historians, Sainte-Beuve gave 表現 to another opinion which is also worthy of attention. In the aforementioned review of Mignet's History of the French 革命,  he argued that the course and 結果 of the French 革命 were 決定するd, not only by the general 原因（となる）s which had given rise to the 革命, and not only by the passions which in turn the 革命 had roused, but also by 非常に／多数の minor phenomena which had escaped the attention of the 捜査官／調査官 and which were not even a part of social phenomena, 適切に so called. He wrote:

"While the passions [roused by social phenomena] were operating, the physical and physiological 軍隊s of nature were not inactive: 石／投石するs continued to obey the 法律 of gravity; the 血 did not 中止する to 循環させる in the veins. Would not the course of events have changed had Mirabeau, say, not died of fever, had Robespierre been killed by the 偶発の 落ちる of a brick or by a 一打／打撃 of apoplexy, or if Bonaparte had been struck 負かす／撃墜する by a 弾丸? And will you dare to 主張する that the 結果 would have been the same? Given a 十分な number of 事故s, 類似の to those I have assumed, the 結果 might have been the very opposite of what, in your opinion, was 必然的な. I have a 権利 to assume the 可能性 of such 事故s because they are 妨げるd neither by the general 原因（となる）s of the 革命 nor by the passions roused by these general 原因（となる）s."

Then he goes on to 引用する the 井戸／弁護士席-known 観察 that history would have taken an 完全に different course had Cleopatra's nose been somewhat shorter; and, in 結論, admitting that very much more could be said in 弁護 of Mignet's 見解（をとる）, he again shows where this author goes wrong. Mignet ascribes 単独で to the 活動／戦闘 of general 原因（となる）s those results which many other, minor, dark and elusive 原因（となる）s had helped to bring about; his 厳しい logic, as it were, 辞退するs to 認める the 存在 of anything that seems to him to be 欠如（する）ing in order and 法律.

VI

Everybody knows that during the 統治する of Louis XV 軍の 事件／事情／状勢s 刻々と went from bad to worse in フラン. As Henri ツバメ has 観察するd, during the Seven Years' War the French army, which always had 非常に／多数の 売春婦s, tradesmen and servants in its train, and which had three times as many pack horses as saddle horses, had more resemblance to the hordes of Darius and Xerxes than to the armies of Turenne and Gustavus-Adolphus.^[16] Archenholtz says in his history of this war that the French officers, when 任命するd for guard 義務, often 砂漠d their 地位，任命するs to go dancing somewhere in the 周辺, and obeyed the orders of their superiors only when they thought fit.

This deplorable 明言する／公表する ot 軍の 事件／事情／状勢s was 予定 to the 悪化／低下 of the aristocracy, which, にもかかわらず, continued to 占領する all the high 地位，任命するs in the army, and to the general dislocation of the "old order," which was 速く drifting to its doom. These general  原因（となる）s alone would have been やめる 十分な to make the 結果 of the Seven Years' War unfavorable to フラン. But undoubtedly the 無資格／無能力 of generals like Soubise 大いに 増加するd the chances of 失敗 for the French army which these general 原因（となる）s already 供給するd. Soubise 保持するd his 地位，任命する, thanks to Madame Pompadour; and so we must count the proud Marquise as one ot the "tactors" 意味ありげに 増強するing the untavorable 影響（力） of these general 原因（となる）s on the position of French 事件／事情／状勢s.

The Marquise de Pompadour was strong, not because of her own strength, but because ot the 力／強力にする of the king who was 支配する to her will. Can we say that the character of Louis XV was 正確に／まさに what 必然的に it was bound to be, in 見解（をとる） of the general course of 開発 of social relations in フラン? No, given the same course of 開発 a king might have appeared in his place with a different 態度 toward women. Sainte-Beuve would say that the 活動／戦闘 of obscure and intangible physiological 原因（となる）s was 十分な to account for this. And he would be 権利. But, if that is so, the 結論 現れるs that these obscure physiological 原因（となる）s, by 影響する／感情ing the 進歩 and results of the Seven Years' War, also in consequence 影響する／感情d the その後の 開発 of フラン, which would have proceeded 異なって if the Seven Years' War had not 奪うd her of a 広大な／多数の／重要な part of her 植民地s. Does not this 結論, we then ask, 否定する the conception of a social 開発 contorming to 法律s?

No, not in the least. The 影響 of personal peculiarities in the instances we have discussed is 否定できない; but no いっそう少なく 否定できない is the fact that such an ettect could occur only in the given social 条件s.  After the 戦う／戦い of Rosbach, the French became ひどく indignant with Soubise's protectress. Every day she received numbers of 匿名の／不明の letters, 十分な of 脅しs and 乱用. This very 本気で 乱すd Madame Pompadour; she began to を煩う insomnia.^[17] にもかかわらず, she continued to 保護する Soubise. In 1762 she 発言／述べるd in one of her letters to him that he was not 正当化するing the hopes that had been placed in him, but she 追加するd: "Have no 恐れる, however, I will take care of your 利益／興味s and try to reconcile you with the king."^[18] As you see, she did not 産する／生じる to public opinion.

Why did she not 産する／生じる? Probably because French society of that day had no means of 説得力のある  her to do so. But why was French society of that day unable to do so? It was 妨げるd from doing so by its form of organization, which in turn was 決定するd by the relation of social 軍隊s in フラン at that time. Hence, it is the relation of social 軍隊s in the last 分析, which explains the fact that Louis XV's character and the caprices of his favorite could have such a deplorable 影響（力） on the 運命／宿命 of フラン. Had it not been the king who had a 証拠不十分 for the fair sex, but the king's cook or groom, this would not have had any historical significance.

明確に, it is not the 証拠不十分 that is important here, but the social position of the person afflicted with it. The reader will understand that these arguments can be 適用するd to all the abovequoted examples. In these arguments it is necessary to change only what needs changing, for example, to put Russia in the place of フラン, Buturlin in place of Soubise, etc. That is why we will not repeat them.

It follows, then, that by virtue of particular traits of their character individuals can 影響（力） the 運命／宿命 of society. いつかs this 影響（力） is very かなりの; but the 可能性 of 演習ing this 影響（力）, and its extent, are 決定するd by the form of organization of society, by the relation of 軍隊s within it. The character of an individual is a "factor" in social 開発 only where, when, and to the extent that social relations 許す it to be such.

We may be told that the extent of personal 影響（力） may also be 決定するd by the talents of the individual. We agree. But the individual can 陳列する，発揮する his talents only when he 占領するs the position in society necessary for this. Why was the 運命／宿命 of フラン in the 手渡すs of a man who 欠如（する）d 全く the ability and 願望（する） to serve society? Because such was the form of organization of that society. It is the form of organization that in any given period 決定するs the 役割 and, その結果, the social significance that may 落ちる to the lot of talented or incompetent individuals.

But if the 役割 of individuals is 決定するd by the form of organization of society, how can their social 影響（力）, which is 決定するd by the 役割 they play, 否定する the conception of social 開発 as a 過程 表明するing 法律s? It does not 否定する it; on the contrary, it serves as one of its most vivid illustrations.

Here, however, we must 観察する the に引き続いて. The 可能性 - 決定するd by the form of organization of society - that individuals may 演習 social 影響（力） opens the door to the 役割 of いわゆる 事故  in the historical 運命 of nations. Louis XV's lasciviousness was an 必然的な consequence of the 明言する／公表する of his physical 憲法, but in relation to the general course of フラン's 開発 the 明言する／公表する of his 憲法 was 偶発の.  にもかかわらず, as we have said, it did 影響（力） the 運命／宿命 of フラン and served as one of the 原因（となる）s which 決定するd this 運命／宿命. The death of Mirabeau, of course, was 予定 to pathological 過程s which obeyed 限定された 法律s. The inevitability of these 過程s, however, did not arise out of the general course of フラン's 開発, but out of 確かな particular features of the celebrated orator's 憲法 and out of the physical 条件s under which he had 契約d his 病気. In relation to the general course of フラン's 開発 these features and 条件s were 偶発の.  And yet, Mirabeau's death 影響（力）d the その上の course of the 革命 and served as one of the 原因（となる）s which 決定するd it.

Still more astonishing was the 影響 of 偶発の 原因（となる）s in the above-について言及するd example of Frederick II, who 後継するd in extricating himself from an 極端に difficult 状況／情勢 only because of Buturlin's irresolution. Even in relation to the general 原因（となる） of Russia's 開発 Buturlin's 任命 may have been 偶発の, in the sense that we have defined that 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語, and, of course, it had no relation whatever to the general course of Prussia's 開発. Yet it is not improbable that Buturlin's irresolution saved Frederick from a desperate 状況／情勢. Had Suvorov been in Buturlin's place, the history of Prussia might have taken a different course.

It follows, then, that いつかs the 運命／宿命 of nations depends on 事故s, which may be called 事故s of the second degree. "In allem Endlichen ist ein Element des Zufälligen," said Hegel. (In everything finite there are 偶発の elements.) In science we 取引，協定 only with the "finite"; hence we can say that all the 過程s 熟考する／考慮するd by science 含む／封じ込める some 偶発の elements. Does not this 妨げる the 科学の cognition of phenomena? No. 事故 is 親族.  It appears only at the point of 交差点 of 必然的な  過程s. For the inhabitants of Mexico and Peru, the 外見 of Europeans in America was 偶発の  in the sense that it did not follow from the social 開発 of these countries. But the passion for 航海 which 所有するd West Europeans at the end of the Middle Ages was not 偶発の; nor was the fact that the European 軍隊s easily overcame the 抵抗 of the natives. The consequences of the conquest of Mexico and Peru by Europeans were also not 偶発の; in the last 分析, these consequences were 決定するd by the resultant of two 軍隊s: the 経済的な position of the 征服する／打ち勝つd countries on the one 手渡す, and the 経済的な position of the 征服者／勝利者s on the other. And these 軍隊s, like their resultant, can fully serve as 反対するs of 科学の 調査.

The 事故s of the Seven Years' War 演習d かなりの 影響（力） upon the その後の history of Prussia. But their 影響（力） would have been 完全に different at a different 行う／開催する／段階 of Prussia's 開発. Here, too, the 偶発の consequences were 決定するd by the resultant of two 軍隊s: the social-political 条件s of Prussia on the one 手渡す, and the social-political 条件 of the European countries that 影響（力）d her, on the other. Hence, here too, 事故s do not in the least 妨げる the 科学の 調査 of phenomena.

We know now that individuals often 演習 かなりの 影響（力） upon the 運命／宿命 of society, but this 影響（力） is 決定するd by the 内部の structure of that society and by its relation to other societies. But this is not all that has to be said about the 役割 of the individual in history. We must approach this question from still another 味方する.

Sainte-Beuve thought that had there been a 十分な number of petty and dark 原因（となる）s of the 肉親，親類d that he had について言及するd, the 結果 of the French 革命 would have been the opposite of what we know it to have been. This is a 広大な／多数の／重要な mistake. No 事柄 how intricately the petty, psychological and physiological 原因（となる）s may have been interwoven, under no circumstances would they have 除去するd the 広大な／多数の／重要な social needs that gave rise to the French 革命; and as long as these needs remained unsatisfied the 革命の movement in フラン would have continued. To make the 結果 of this movement the opposite of what it was, the needs that gave rise to it would have had to be the opposite of what they were; and this, of course, no combination of petty 原因（となる）s would ever be able to bring about.

The 原因（となる）s of the French 革命 lay in the character of social relations;  and the petty 原因（となる）s assumed by Sainte-Beuve could 嘘（をつく） only in the personal 質s of individuals.  The final 原因（となる） of social 関係s lies in the 明言する／公表する of the 生産力のある 軍隊s. This depends on the 質s of individuals only in the sense, perhaps, that these individuals 所有する more or いっそう少なく talent for making technical 改良s, 発見s and 発明s. Sainte-Beuve did not have these 質s in mind. No other 質s, however, enable individuals 直接／まっすぐに to 影響（力） the 明言する／公表する of 生産力のある 軍隊s, and, hence, the social relations which they 決定する, i.e., 経済的な relations.  No 事柄 what the 質s of the given individual may be, they cannot 除去する the given 経済的な relations if the latter 適合する to the given 明言する／公表する of 生産力のある 軍隊s. But the personal 質s of individuals make them more or いっそう少なく fit to 満足させる those social needs which arise out of the given 経済的な relations, or to 中和する／阻止する such satisfaction.

The 緊急の social need of フラン at the end of the 18th century was the substitution for the obsolete political 会・原則s of new 会・原則s that would 適合する more to her 経済的な system. The most 目だつ and useful public men of that time were those who were more 有能な than others of helping to 満足させる this most 緊急の need.

We will assume that Mirabeau, Robespierre and Napoleon were men of that type. What would have happened had premature death not 除去するd Mirabeau from the political 行う／開催する／段階? The 憲法の monarchist party would have 保持するd its かなりの 力／強力にする for a longer period; its 抵抗 to the 共和国の／共和党のs would, therefore, have been more energetic. But that is all. No Mirabeau could, at that time, have 回避するd the 勝利 of the 共和国の／共和党のs. Mirabeau's 力／強力にする 残り／休憩（する）d 完全に on the sympathy and 信用／信任 of the people; but the people 手配中の，お尋ね者 a 共和国, as the 法廷，裁判所 irritated them by its obstinate 弁護 of the old order. As soon as the people had become 納得させるd that Mirabeau did not sympathize with their 共和国の／共和党の strivings they would have ,中止するd to sympathize with him; and then the 広大な／多数の／重要な orator would have lost nearly all 影響（力）, and in all probability would have fallen a 犠牲者 to the very movement that he vainly would have tried to check.

だいたい the same thing may be said about Robespierre. Let us assume that he was an 絶対 不可欠の 軍隊 in his party; but even so, he was not the only 軍隊. If the 偶発の 落ちる of a brick had killed him, say, in January 1793, his place, of course, would have been taken by somebody else, and although this person might have been inferior to him in every 尊敬（する）・点, にもかかわらず, events would have taken the same course  as they did when Robespierre was alive. For example, even under these circumstances the Gironde would probably not have escaped 敗北・負かす; but it is possible that Robespierre's party would have lost 力／強力にする somewhat earlier and we would now be speaking, not of the Thermidor  reaction, but of the Floreal, Prairial  or Messidor  reaction. Perhaps some will say that with his inexorable Terror, Robespierre did not 延期する but 急いでd the downfall of his party. We will not stop to 診察する this supposition here; we will 受託する it as if it were やめる sound. In that 事例／患者 we must assume that Robespierre's party would have fallen not in Thermidor,  but in Fructidor, Vendemiaire  or Brumaire.  In short, it may have fallen sooner or perhaps later, but it certainly would have fallen, because the section of the people which supported Robespierre's party was 全く unprepared to 持つ／拘留する 力／強力にする for a 長引かせるd period. At all events, results "opposite" to those which arose from Robespierre's energetic 活動／戦闘 are out of the question.

Nor could they have arisen even if Bonaparte had been struck 負かす／撃墜する by a 弾丸, let us say, at the 戦う／戦い of Arcole. What he did in the Italian and other （選挙などの）運動をするs other generals would have done. Probably they would not have 陳列する，発揮するd the same talent as he did, and would not have 達成するd such brilliant victories; にもかかわらず the French 共和国 would have 現れるd 勝利を得た from the wars it 行うd at that time because its 兵士s were incomparably the best in Europe.

As for the 18th of Brumaire  and its 影響（力） on the 内部の life of フラン, here too, in essence,  the general course and 結果 of events would probably have been the same as they were under Napoleon. The 共和国, mortally 負傷させるd by the events of the 9th of Thermidor,  was slowly dying. The Directoire  was unable to 回復する order which the bourgeoisie, having rid itself of the 支配する of the aristocracy, now 願望（する）d most of all. To 回復する order a "good sword,"  as Siéyès 表明するd it, was needed. At first it was thought that General Jourdan would serve in this virtuous 役割, but when he was killed at Novi, the 指名するs of Moreau, MacDonald and Bernadotte were について言及するd.^[19] Bonaparte was only について言及するd later; and had he been killed, like Jourdan, he would not have been について言及するd at all, and some other "sword" would have been put 今後.

It goes without 説 that the man whom events had elevated to the position of 独裁者 tirelessly must have been aspiring to 力／強力にする himself, energetically 押し進めるing aside and 鎮圧するing ruthlessly all who stood in his way. Bonaparte was a man of アイロンをかける energy and was remorseless in the 追跡 of his goal. But in those days there were not a few energetic, talented and ambitious egoists besides him. The place Bonaparte 後継するd in 占領するing probably would not have remained 空いている. Let us assume that the other general who had 安全な・保証するd this place would have been more 平和的な than Napoleon. that he would not have roused the whole of Europe against himself, and therefore, would have died in the Tuileries and not on the island of St. Helena. In that 事例／患者, the Bourbons would not have returned to フラン at all; for them, such a result would certainly have been the "opposite" of what it was. In its relation to the 内部の life of フラン as a whole, however, this result would have 異なるd little from the actual result. After the "good sword" had 回復するd order and had 強固にする／合併する／制圧するd the 力／強力にする of the bourgeoisie, the latter would have soon tired of its barrack-room habits and 先制政治. A 自由主義の movement would have arisen, 類似の to the one that arose after the 復古／返還; the fight would have 徐々に ゆらめくd up, and as "good swords" are not distingtlished for their 産する／生じるing nature, the virtuous Louis-Philippe perhaps would have 上がるd the 王位 of his dearly beloved kinsmen, not in 1830, but in 1820, or in 1825.

All such changes in the course of events to some extent might have 影響（力）d the その後の political, and through it, the 経済的な life of Europe. にもかかわらず, under no circumstances would the final 結果 of the 革命の movement have been the "opposite" of what it was. 借りがあるing to the 明確な／細部 質s of their minds and characters, 影響力のある individuals can change the individual features of events and some of their particular consequences,  but they cannot change their general 傾向,  which is 決定するd by other 軍隊s.

VII

In assuming the 役割 of the "good sword" to save public order, Napoleon 妨げるd all the other generals from playing this 役割, and some of them might have 成し遂げるd it in the same way, or almost the same way, as he did. Once the public need for an energetic 軍の 支配者 was satisified, the social organization 閉めだした the road to the position of 軍の 支配者 for all other talented solcliers. The 力／強力にする of this position became a 力／強力にする that was unfavorable to the 外見 of other talents of a 類似の 肉親，親類d.

This is the 原因（となる） of the 光学の illusion which we have について言及するd. Napoleon's personal 力／強力にする 現在のs itself to us in an 極端に magnified form, for we せいにする to him the social 力／強力にする which had brought him to the 前線 and supported him. Napoleon's 力／強力にする appears やめる exceptional because the other 力／強力にするs 類似の to it did not pass from the 可能性のある to the real. And when we are asked, "What would have happened if there had been no Napoleon?" our imagination becomes 混乱させるd and it seems to us that without him the social movement upon which his 力／強力にする and 影響（力） were based could not have taken place.

In the history of the 開発 ot human intellect, the success of some individual 妨げるs the success of another individual  much more rarely. But even here we are not 解放する／自由な from the above-について言及するd 光学の illusion. When a given 明言する／公表する of society 始める，決めるs 確かな problems before its 知識人 代表者／国会議員s, the attention of 目だつ minds is concentrated upon them until these problems are solved. As soon as they have 後継するd in solving them, their attention is transferred to another 反対する. By solving a problem a given talent A コースを変えるs the attention of talent B from the problem ah-eady solved to another problem. And when we are asked: What would have happened if A had died betore he had solved problem X? - we imagine that the thread of 開発 of the human intellect would have been broken. We forget that had A died B, or C, or D might have 取り組むd the problem, and the thread of 知識人 開発 would have remained 損なわれていない in spite of A's premature demise.

In order that a man who 所有するs a particular 肉親，親類d of talent may, by means of it, 大いに 影響（力） the course of events, two 条件s are needed: First, this talent must make him more conformable to the social needs of the given 時代 than anyone else. If Napoleon had 所有するd the musical gifts of Beethoven instead of his own 軍の genius he would, of course, not have become an emperot . Second, the 存在するing social order must not 妨げる／法廷，弁護士業 the road to the persor1 所有するing the talent which is needed and useful 正確に at the given time. This very Napoleon would have died as the barely known General, or 陸軍大佐, Bonaparte had the older order in フラン 存在するd another seventy-five years.^[20] In 1789, Davout, Désaix, Marmont and MacDonald were subalterns; Bernadotte was a sergeantmajor; Hoche, Marceau, Lefebre, Pichegru, Ney, Massena, Murat and Soult were 非，不，無-（売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限d officers; Augereau was a 盗品故買者ing master; Lannes was a dyer; Gouvion Saint-Cyr was an actor; Jourdan was a peddler; Bessieres was a barber; Brune was a compositor; Joubert and Junot were 法律 students; Kleber was an architect; Martier did not see any 軍の service until the 革命.^[21]

Had the old order continued to 存在する until our day it would never have occurred to any of us that in フラン, at the end of the last [the 18th] century, 確かな actors, compositors, barbers, dyers, lawyers, peddlers and 盗品故買者ing masters had been 可能性のある 軍の geniuses.^[22]

Stendhal 観察するd that a man who was born at the same time as Titian, in 1477, could have lived forty years with Raphael, who died in 1520, and with Leonardo da Vinci, who died in 1519; that he could have spent many years with Corregio, who died in 1534, and with Michelangelo, who lived until 1563; that he would have been no more than thirty-four years of age when Giorgione died; that he could have been 熟知させるd with Tintoretto, Bassano, Veronese, Julian Romano and Andrea del Sarto; that, in short, he would have been the 同時代の of all the 広大な／多数の／重要な painters, with the exception of those who belonged to the Bologna School, which arose a 十分な century later.^[23] 類似して, it may be said that a man who was born in the same year as Wouwermann could have been 熟知させるd 本人自身で with nearly all the 広大な／多数の／重要な Dutch painters;^[24] and a man of the same age as Shakespeare would have been the 同時代の of a number of remarkable 脚本家s.^[25]

It long has been 観察するd that 広大な／多数の／重要な talents appear whenever the social 条件s 都合のよい to their 開発 存在する. This means that every man of talent who 現実に appears,  every man of talent who becomes a social 軍隊,  is the 製品 of social relations.  Since this is the 事例／患者, it is （疑いを）晴らす why talented people, as we have said, can change only individual features of events, but not the general 傾向; they are themselves the 製品 of this 傾向;  were it not for that 傾向 they never would have crossed the threshold that divides the 可能性のある from the real.

It goes without 説 that there is talent and talent. "When a fresh step in the 開発 of civilization calls into 存在 a new form of art," rightly says Taine, "得点する／非難する／２０s of talents which only half 表明する social thought appear around one or two geniuses who 表明する it perfectly."^[26] If, 借りがあるing to 確かな mechanical or physiological 原因（となる）s unconnected with the general course of the social-political and 知識人 開発 of Italy, Raphael, Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci had died in their 幼少／幼藍期, Italian art would have been いっそう少なく perfect, but the general 傾向 of its 開発 in the period of the Renaissance would have remained the same. Raphael, Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo did not create this 傾向; they were 単に its best 代表者／国会議員s. Irue, usually a whole school springs up around a man of genius, and his pupils try to copy his methods to the minutest 詳細（に述べる）s; that is why the gap that would have been left in Italian art in the period of the Renaissance by the 早期に death of Raphael, Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci would have 影響（力）d 堅固に many of the 第２位 features of its その後の history. But in essence there would have been no change in this history, 供給するd there were no important change in the general course of the 知識人 開発 of Italy 予定 to general 原因（となる）s.

It is 井戸／弁護士席 known, however, that quantitative differences 最終的に pass into qualitative differences. This is true everywhere, and is therefore true in history. A given 傾向 in art may remain without any remarkable 表現 if an unfavorable combination of circumstances carries away, one after the other, several talented people who might have given it 表現. But the premature death of such talented people can 妨げる the artistic 表現 of this 傾向 only if it is too shallow to produce new talent. However, the depth of any given 傾向 in literature and art is 決定するd by its importance for the class or stratum whose tastes it 表明するs, and by the social 役割 played by that class or stratum; here too, in the last 分析, everything depends upon the course of social 開発 and on the relation of social 軍隊s.

VIII

The adherents of the new 傾向 in the science ot history began to argue that history could not have taken any other course than the one it has taken, notwithstanding all "原子s." 努力する／競うing to 強調する the ettect of general 原因（となる）s as much as possible, they ignored the personal 質s of historical personages. によれば their argument, historical events would not have been 影響する／感情d in the.least by the substitution of some persons for others, more or いっそう少なく 有能な.^[27] But if we make such an 仮定／引き受けること, we must 収容する／認める that the personal element is of no significance whatever in history,  and that everything can be 減ずるd to the 操作／手術 of general 原因（となる）s, to the general 法律s of historical 進歩. This would be going to an extreme which leaves no room for the 粒子 of truth 含む／封じ込めるd in the opposite opinion. It is 正確に for this 推論する／理由 that the opposite opinion 保持するd some 権利 to 存在. The 衝突／不一致 between these two 見解（をとる）s assumed the torm of an antinomy, the first part of which was general 法律s, and the second part the activities of individuals. From the point of 見解（をとる） of the second part the antinomy, history was 簡単に a chain of 事故s; trom the point of 見解（をとる） of the first part it seemed that even the individual features of historical events were 決定するd by the 操作／手術 of general 原因（となる）s. But if the individual features of events are 決定するd by the 影響（力） of general 原因（となる）s and do not depend upon the personal 質s of historical personages, it follows that these features are 決定するd by general 原因（となる）s  and cannot be changed, no 事柄 how much these personages may change. Thus, the theory assumes a fatalistic  character.

This did not escape the attention of its 対抗者s. Sainte-Beuve compared Mignet's conception of history with that of Bossuet. Bossuet thought that the 軍隊 which 原因（となる）s historical events to take place comes from above, that events serve to 表明する the divine will. Mignet sought for this 軍隊 in the human passions, which are 陳列する，発揮するd in historical events as inexorably and immutably as the 軍隊s of nature. But both regarded history as a chain of phenomena which could not have been different, no 事柄 what the circumstances; both were fatalists; in this 尊敬（する）・点, the philosopher was not far 除去するd from the priest (le philosophe se rapproche du prêtre).

This reproach was justitied as long as the doctrine that social phenomena 適合するd to 確かな 法律s 減ずるd the 影響（力） of the personal 質s of 目だつ historical individuals to a cipher. And the impression made by this reproach was all the more strong for the 推論する／理由 that the historians of the new school, like the historians and philosophers of the 18th century, regarded human nature  as a higher instance, from which all the general 原因（となる）s  of historical movement sprang, and to which they were subordinated. As the French 革命 had shown that historical events are not 決定するd by the conscious  活動／戦闘s of men alone, Mignet and Cuizot, and the other historians of the same 傾向, put in the 最前部 the 影響 of passions,  which often rebelled against all 支配（する）／統制する by the mind.

But if passions are the final and most general 原因（となる） of historical events, then why is Sainte-Beuve wrong in 主張するing that the 結果 ot the French 革命 might have been the opposite ot what we know it was it there had been individuals 有能な of imbuing the French people with passions opposite to those which had excited them? Mignot would have said: because other passions could not have excited the French people at that time 借りがあるing to the very 質s ot human nature. In a 確かな sense this would have been true. But this truth would have had a 堅固に fatalistic tinge, tor it would have been on a par with the 論題／論文 that the history of mankind, in all its 詳細（に述べる）s, is predetermined by the general  質s of human nature. Fatalism would have appeared here as the result of the 見えなくなる of the individual in the general.  Incidentally, it is always the result of such a 見えなくなる. It is said: "If all social phenomena are 必然的な, then our activities cannot have any significance." This is a 訂正する idea wrongly 明確に表すd. We せねばならない say: If everything occurs as a result of the general,  then the individual,  含むing my 成果／努力s, is of no significance. This  deduction is 訂正する; but it is incorrectly 雇うd. It is meaningless when 適用するd to the modern materialist conception of history, in which there is room also for the individual.  But it was 正当化するd when 適用するd to the 見解（をとる）s of the French historians in the period of the 復古／返還.

At the 現在の time, human nature can no longer be regarded as the final and most general 原因（となる） of historical 進歩: if it is constant, it cannot explain the 極端に changeable course of history; if it is changeable, 明白に its changes are themselves 決定するd by historical 進歩. At the 現在の time we must regard the 開発 of 生産力のある 軍隊s as the final and most general 原因（となる） of the historical 進歩 of mankind, and it is these 生産力のある 軍隊s that 決定する the 連続した changes in the social relations of men. 平行の with this general  原因（となる） there are particular  原因（となる）s, i.e., the historical 状況／情勢  in which the 開発 of the 生産力のある 軍隊s of a given nation proceeds and which, in the last 分析, is itself created by the 開発 of these 軍隊s の中で other nations, i.e., the same general 原因（となる）.

Finally, the 影響（力） of the particular  原因（となる）s is 補足（する）d by the 操作／手術 of individual  原因（となる）s, i.e., the personal 質s of public men and other "事故s," thanks to which events finally assume their individual features.  Individual 原因（となる）s cannot bring about 根底となる changes in the 操作／手術 of general and particular  原因（となる）s which, moreover, 決定する the 傾向 and 限界s of the 影響（力） of individual 原因（となる）s. にもかかわらず, there is no 疑問 that history would have had different teatures had the individual 原因（となる）s which had 影響（力）d it been 取って代わるd by other 原因（となる）s of the same order.

Monod and Lamprecht still 固執する to the human nature point of 見解（をとる）. Lamprecht categorically, and more than once, has 宣言するd that in his opinion social mentality is the 根底となる 原因（となる） of historical phenomena. This is a 広大な／多数の／重要な mistake, and as a result of this mistake the 願望（する）, very laudable in itself, to take into account the sum total of social life may lead only to vapid eclecticism or, の中で the most 一貫した, to Kablitz's arguments 関心ing the 親族 significance of the mind and the senses.

But let us return to our 支配する. A 広大な／多数の／重要な man is 広大な／多数の／重要な not because his personal 質s give individual teatures to 広大な／多数の／重要な historical events, but because he 所有するs 質s which make him most 有能な of serving the 広大な／多数の／重要な social needs of his time, needs which arose as a result of general and particular 原因（となる）s. In his 井戸／弁護士席-known 調書をとる／予約する on heroes and hero-worship, Carlyle, calls 広大な／多数の／重要な men beginners.  I his is a very apt description. A 広大な／多数の／重要な man is a beginner 正確に because he sees その上の  than others and 願望（する）s things more 堅固に  than others. He solves the scientitic problems brought up by the 先行する 過程 of 知識人 開発 of society; he points to the new social needs created by the 先行する 開発 of social 関係s; he takes the 率先 in satistying these needs. He is a hero. But he is a hero not in the sense that he can stop or change the natural course of things, but in the sense that his activities are the conscious and 解放する／自由な 表現 of this 必然的な and unconscious course. Herein lies all his signiticance; herein lies his whole 力／強力にする. But this significance is colossal, and the 力／強力にする is terrible.

Bismarck said that we cannot make history and must wait while it is 存在 made. But who makes history? It is made by the social man,  who is its 単独の "factor."  The social man creates his own, social, 関係s. But it hl a given period he creates given 関係s and not others, there must be some 原因（となる） for it, of course; it is 決定するd by the 明言する／公表する of his 生産力のある 軍隊s. No 広大な／多数の／重要な man can foist on society relations which no longer  適合する to the 明言する／公表する ot these 軍隊s, or which do not yet  適合する to them. In this sense, hldeed, he cannot make history, and in this sense he would 前進する the 手渡すs of his clock in vain; he would not 急いで the passage of time, nor turn it 支援する. Here Lamprecht is やめる 権利: even at the 高さ of his 力／強力にする Bismarck could not 原因（となる） Germany to 逆戻りする to natural economy.

Social 関係s have their inherent logic; as long as people live in given 相互の 関係s they will feel, think and 行為／法令／行動する in a given way, and no other. 試みる／企てるs on the part of public men to 戦闘 this logic also would be truitless; the natural course of things (this logic of social 関係s) would 減ずる all his ettort to nought. But it I know in what direction social relations are changing 借りがあるing to given changes in the social-経済的な 過程 of 生産／産物, I also know in what direction social mentality is changing; その結果, I am able to 影響（力） it. 影響（力）ing social mentality means 影響（力）ing historical events. Hence, in a 確かな sense, I can make history,  and there is no need for me to wait while "it is 存在 made."

Monod believes that really important events and individuals in history are important only as 調印するs and symbols of the 開発 of 会・原則s and 経済的な 条件s. This is a 訂正する although very inexactly 表明するd idea; but 正確に because this idea is 訂正する it is wrong to …に反対する the activities of 広大な／多数の／重要な men to "the slow 進歩"  of the 条件s and 会・原則s について言及するd. The more or いっそう少なく slow changes in "経済的な 条件s" periodically 直面する society with the necessity of more or いっそう少なく 速く changing its 会・原則s. This change never takes place "by itself"; it always needs the 介入 of men,  who thus are 直面するd with 広大な／多数の／重要な social problems. And it is those men who do more than others to 容易にする the 解答 of these problems who are called 広大な／多数の／重要な men. But solving a problem does not mean 存在 only a "symbol" and a "調印する" of the fact that it has been solved.

We think Monod …に反対するd the one to the other おもに because he was carried away by the pleasant catchword "slow."  Many modern evolutionists are very fond of this catchword. Psychologically,  this passion is comprehensible: 必然的に  it arises in the respectable milieu of moderation and punctiliousness.... But 論理（学）上  it does not 耐える examination, as Hegel 証明するd.

And it is not only for "beginners," not only for "広大な／多数の／重要な" men that a 幅の広い field of activity is open. It is open for all those who have 注目する，もくろむs to see, ears to hear and hearts to love their neighbors. The 概念 広大な／多数の／重要な  is a 親族 概念. In the 倫理的な sense every man is 広大な／多数の／重要な who, to use the Biblical phrase, "lays 負かす／撃墜する his life for his friend."

公式文書，認めるs:

1. A Frenchman of the l7th century would have been surprised at this combination of materialism and 宗教的な dogma. In England, however, nobody thought it strange. Priestley himself was very 宗教的な. Different countries, different customs. [Go 支援する]

2. See his Histoire de la Littérature française,   I [Go 支援する]

3. It is 井戸／弁護士席 known that, によれば the doctrines of Calvin, all men's 活動／戦闘s are predetermined by God: "By predestination we mean the eternal 法令 of God, by which he within himself has 任命するd what it behoves shall happen to each man" (Institutio,  III, Ch. 5). によれば the same doctrine, God chooses 確かな of his servants to 解放する 不正に 抑圧するd peoples. Such was Moses, who 解放するd the people of イスラエル. Everything goes to show that Cromwell also regarded himself as such an 器具 of God: he always called his 活動／戦闘s the fruits of the will of God, and probably he やめる 心から  was 納得させるd that they were so. For him,  all these 活動／戦闘s were colored by necessity beforehand.  This did not 妨げる him from 努力する／競うing for victory after victory; it even gave this 努力する／競うing indomitable 力／強力にする. [Go 支援する]

4. It is as if the compass needle took 楽しみ in turning toward the north, believing that its movement was 独立した・無所属 of any other 原因（となる）, and unaware of the imperceptible movements of 磁石の 事柄." Leibniz, Théodicée,  Lausanne, 1760, 598. [Go 支援する]

5. We will 引用する another example, which vividly illustrates how 堅固に people of this 部類 feel. In a letter to her teacher, Calvin Renée, the Duchess of Ferrara (of the house of Louis XII) wrote as follows: "No, I have not forgotten what you wrote me: that David bore mortal 憎悪 toward the enemies of God. And I will never 行為／法令／行動する 異なって, for if I knew that the King, my father, the Queen, my mother, the late lord, my husband (feu monsieur mon mari)  and all my children had been cast out by God, I would hate them with a mortal 憎悪 and would wish them in Hell".... What terrible, all-destroying energy the people who felt like this could 陳列する，発揮する! And yet these people 否定するd that there was such a thing as 解放する／自由な will. [Go 支援する]

6. "Necessity becomes freedom, not by disappearing, but only by the 外部の 表現 of their inner 身元." Hegel, Wissenschaft der Logik, Nürnberg, 1816. [Go 支援する]

7. In our 努力する／競うing for a 合成, we were forestalled by the same Mr. Kareyev. Unfortunately, however, he went no さらに先に than to 収容する／認める the truism that man consists of a soul and a 団体／死体. [Go 支援する]

8. Leaving aside Lamprecht's other philosophical and historical essays, we 言及する to his essay, "Der Ausgang des geschichtswissenschaftlichen Kampfes," Die Zukunft 1897, No. 41. [Go 支援する]

9. L'OEvres 完全にするs del'abbé de Mably,  London, 1783, IV, 3,14-22, 24,192. [Go 支援する]

10. Ibid.,  10 [Go 支援する]

11. Compare his first letter on l'Histoire de フラン  with l'Essai sur le genre dramatique serieux in the first 容積／容量 of CEuvres 完全にするs de Beaumarchais. [Go 支援する]

12. CEuvres 完全にするs de Chateaubriand, Paris, 1804, Vll, 58. We also recommend the next page to the reader; one might think that it was written by Mr. N. Mikhailovsky. [Go 支援する]

13. See "Considérations sur l'histoire de フラン," 虫垂 to Récit de temps Mérovingiens,  Paris, 1840, 72. [Go 支援する]

14. In a review of the third 版 of Mignet's History of the French 革命,  Sainte-Beuve characterized that historian's 態度 toward 広大な／多数の／重要な men as follows: "In 直面する of the 広大な and 深遠な popular emotions which he had to 述べる, and of the impotence and nullity to which the sublimest genius and the saintliest virtue are 減ずるd when the 集まりs arise, he was 掴むd with pity for men as individuals, could see in them, taken in 孤立／分離, only their 証拠不十分, and would not 許す them to be 有能な of 効果的な 活動／戦闘, except through union with the multitude." [Go 支援する]

15. Incidentally, others say that Broglie was to 非難する for not waiting for his comrade, as he did not want to 株 the laurels of victory with him. This makes no difference to us, as it does not alter the 事例／患者 in the least. [Go 支援する]

16. Histoire de フラン,  4th 版, XV, 520-21. [Go 支援する]

17. See Memoires de madame du Haliffet,  Paris, 1824, 181. [Go 支援する]

18. See Lettres de la marquise de Pompadour,  London, 1772, I. [Go 支援する]

19. La ve en フラン sous le 首相 Empire,  de Broc, Paris, 1895, 35-36. [Go 支援する]

20. Probably Napoleon would have gone to Russia, where he had ーするつもりであるd to go just a few years before the 革命.  Here, no 疑問, he would have distinguished himself in 活動／戦闘 against the Turks or the Caucasian highlanders, but nobody here would have thought that this poor, but 有能な, officer could have become the 支配者 of the world under 都合のよい circumstances. [Go 支援する]

21. See Histoire de フラン,  V. Durey, Paris, 1893,11, 524-25. [Go 支援する]

22. In the 統治する of Louis XV, only one 代表者／国会議員 of the third 広い地所, Chevert. could rise to the 階級 of 中尉／大尉／警部補-general. In the 統治する of Louis XVI it was even more difficult for members of this 広い地所 to make a 軍の career. See Rambeaud, Histoire de la civilisation française,  6th 版, II, 226. [Go 支援する]

23. Histoire de la Peinture en Italie,  Paris, 1889, 23-25. [Go 支援する]

24. Terburg, Brower and Rembrandt were born in 1608; Adrain 先頭-Ostade and Ferdinand Bol were born in 1610; 先頭 der Holst and Cerard Dow were born in 1615; Wouwermann was born in 1620; Werniks, Everdingen and Painaker were born in 1621; Bergham was born in 1624 and Paul Potter in 1629; Jan Steen was born in 1626; Ruisdal and Metsu were born in 1630; 先頭 der Haiden was born in 1637; Hobbema was born in 1638 and Adrian 先頭 der Velde was born in 1639. [Go 支援する]

25. Shakespeare. Beaumont, Fletcher, Jonson, Webster, Massinger, Ford, Middleton and Heywood, who appeared at the same time, or に引き続いて each other, 代表するd the new 世代 which, 借りがあるing to its 都合のよい position, 繁栄するd on the 国／地域 which had been 用意が出来ている by the 成果／努力s of the 先行する 世代." Taine, Histoire de la littérature anglaise, Paris, 1863, I, 468. [Go 支援する]

26. Ibid.,  I, 5. [Go 支援する]

27. によれば their argument, i.e., when they began to discuss the 傾向 of historical events to 適合する to 法律s. When, however some of them 簡単に 述べるd these phenomena, they いつかs ascribed even 誇張するd significance to the personal element. What 利益／興味s us now, however, are not their descriptions, but their arguments. [Go 支援する]